The Military Issues & History Forum is a venue to discuss issues relating to the military aspects of the Indian Armed Forces, whether the past, present or future. We request members to kindly stay within the mandate of this forum and keep their exchanges of views, on a civilised level, however vehemently any disagreement may be felt. All feedback regarding forum usage may be sent to the moderators using the Feedback Form or by clicking the Report Post Icon in any objectionable post for proper action. Please note that the views expressed by the Members and Moderators on these discussion boards are that of the individuals only and do not reflect the official policy or view of the Bharat-Rakshak.com Website. Copyright Violation is strictly prohibited and may result in revocation of your posting rights - please read the FAQ for full details. Users must also abide by the Forum Guidelines at all times.

02/02/2018 16:04:12 *** In Severodvinsk, the parties discussed the post-warranty maintenance of the ship

Moscow. February 2. INTERFAX-AVN - After-sales support for the carrier ship Vikramaditya supplied by Russia to India is being carried out qualitatively, the aircraft carrier has been actively operating for five years, said the head of the logistics department of the Navy Vice Admiral Pabbi Gurjdeh Singh.

"Over the past five years, we have been very active in exploiting the aircraft carrier, it performs all its combat missions well and often goes to sea, which is a clear indication of the quality of Sevmash's work." I am pleased to note that the plant fulfills its obligations with high quality, - said the military commander in Severodvinsk during a meeting with the general director of Sevmash, Mikhail Budnychenko.

"Today, as part of the Navy (navy) of India - it's the flagship," - said the vice-admiral, who is quoted by the press service of Sevmash.

"The prospects for bilateral cooperation in post-warranty support for the aircraft carrier Vikramaditya were discussed at the meeting," the Interfax-AVN news agency reported on Friday recalled that the terms of the contract and the intergovernmental agreement determined that the Russian side (Rosoboronexport "and" Sevmash ") should provide full support in the operation of the aircraft carrier during the entire service life, which can be 40." Sevmash "carried out a deep modernization of the ship and handed it to the Navy Indy . in 2013.

Now "Rosoboronexport" and the company implemented a comprehensive after-sales support system:. by providing technical assistance to the Indian Navy in maintenance in ship equipment to the creation of coastal infrastructure deployment and repair of aircraft carrier As previously noted M.Budnichenko, in 2017, the company on line of military-technical cooperation has completed the work in full, "- said in a press release.

The aircraft carrier Vikramaditya (former heavy aircraft-carrying cruiser Admiral Gorshkov of Soviet construction) was handed over to the Indian Navy on November 16, 2013 at Sevmash, where the ship was being repaired and modernized. The contract for the modernization of the aircraft carrier was concluded with India in 2004.

Yes and I believe probably better navalized than MiG’s half-arsed job with the 29K. Imagine having to use instruments and other things that had to be “recalibrated” after the last landing. And the need to use them with such precision that is dictated by the horribly restrictive layout of a helo-carrier design to begin with.

When the Vikrant comes online, our pilots will be given a lot more breathing room. That is a properly designed carrier deck. They deserve that and a better plane than the 29K tbh. The NLCA deserves consideration.

landing at night in conditions like this on vikky must be a nerve wracking task.

have mikoyan demoed single engine aborted landing cum takeoff or is the vikky still restricted to air ops with standby airport on land only? given the klimov engines are russi, there is a non-zero chance of losing 1 engine ... a lot higher chance than ge404

there aint no flare in carrier landings. its a controlled crash with nose level along the glide slope. tough.

If this is not open source info, please ignore - we have the hawks as an ajt. Could we use the LCAN for carrier training like the goshawks in USN? Do we have goshawk (which are carrier capable hawks) type trainers with us?

Prasad wrote:If this is not open source info, please ignore - we have the hawks as an ajt. Could we use the LCAN for carrier training like the goshawks in USN? Do we have goshawk (which are carrier capable hawks) type trainers with us?

We dont have any carrier capable hawks. I also think that Navy should consider LCA Navy for carrier trainingIf i am right currently carrier training is done using Mig-29KUB at SBTF first followed by carrier

Singha wrote:landing at night in conditions like this on vikky must be a nerve wracking task.

have mikoyan demoed single engine aborted landing cum takeoff or is the vikky still restricted to air ops with standby airport on land only? given the klimov engines are russi, there is a non-zero chance of losing 1 engine ... a lot higher chance than ge404

there aint no flare in carrier landings. its a controlled crash with nose level along the glide slope. tough.

In the pitch-black darkness of night!

And they do it with all the flunky quirks of russki gear.

Can anything take more nerves and skills? The F-18 pilots have far larger margins for error. Even the SU-33 and J-15 pilots on the Kuznetsov class have more room. It is not bragging to say we have some of the best trained and most highly skilled carrier pilots in the world. Their situation demands it.

Singha wrote:have mikoyan demoed single engine aborted landing cum takeoff or is the vikky still restricted to air ops with standby airport on land only? given the klimov engines are russi, there is a non-zero chance of losing 1 engine ... a lot higher chance than ge404

Singha wrote:have mikoyan demoed single engine aborted landing cum takeoff or is the vikky still restricted to air ops with standby airport on land only? given the klimov engines are russi, there is a non-zero chance of losing 1 engine ... a lot higher chance than ge404

The MiG 29K, bought from Russia and inducted in 2010, has suffered repeated engine failures, with at least10 cases of single engine landings, a CAG report on the fleet has revealed. Out of 65 engines received from Russia, India had to reject or withdraw at least 40 from service due to these problems.

Again, that is 40 RD-33 engines rejected or withdrawn from IN service out of a total of 65.

so far i have not seen night ops video off vikky, happy to be corrected.

here is some footage of a dusk type touch n go. not sure if in barents sea or off our coast

I want INS vikrant asap....hopefully pre-dawn brown filter footage of deck edge lifts bringing up fully armed fighters and launching at high tempo..overlayed with the famous top gun giorgio moroder soundtrack

so many years later this is still the gold std in +ve psyops and branding though les chevaliers had better a2a footage using peruvian m2kwe need this the music and the whine of the engines....

4 deck edge lifts each capable of 2 fighters and 4 catapults is a unbeatable advantage in tempo and fault tolerance.a CVN can quickly launch 4 fighters and follow it up with a E2 a few mins later and more fighters kept on standby.

and it was not until pearl harbour attack that it was demoed that carriers were the new king of the seas, and unattached to battleships could attack at high speed on their own , massing for effect and the disappear back into the wide ocean. no other platform could bring such weight and range to bear.

that single day, battleships were rendered obsolete vs a carrier armed adversary.

Nothing beats a ski jump in launch rate. It is as fast as you can get the jets lined up.

Not necessarily. Prolonged exposure to another aircraft's exhaust wash will lead to engine stalls, so you can't really stack them front-to-back on deck. And because a STOBAR jet needs a longer run there's less room to accommodate idling aircraft (assuming a similar deck area), so you'll have fewer aircraft on deck and ready to launch.

Singha wrote:and it was not until pearl harbour attack that it was demoed that carriers were the new king of the seas, and unattached to battleships could attack at high speed on their own , massing for effect and the disappear back into the wide ocean. no other platform could bring such weight and range to bear.

that single day, battleships were rendered obsolete vs a carrier armed adversary.

Ban him I say for persistent attempt to derail the thread. waylaing and seducing us innocent members with his battleship witchcraft.

USN seems to have finalized on a hybrid war strategy in concert with usaf assets vs the growing power of anti shipping with the dragon.

- land based tankers to refuel carrier based assets- land based E3 to back the E2- land based F22/ naval JSF to be radar silent tip of spear , cued by land based F15/E2/E3 equipped with active aesa radars in the back- B1 which by treaty is not nuclear armed, is now a versatile bomb and missile truck and brings a lot of heat to the fight...plus its good at low level and supersonic - based in places like guam it is a integral asset to the strike groups.

we are never going to have enough carriers to fight the dragon 1:1 in the deep ocean. its time we built up the land based side of things to extend a hand.

the car nicobar island can become our staging post. likewise if we can get a base in mauritius or seychelles atleast for LRMP & submarine purposes.https://www.popularmechanics.com/milita ... ip-killer/LRASM is set to arm the Air Force's B-1B and the Navy's F/A-18E/F Super Hornets. What makes the LRASM/B-1B combination stand outis the sheer amount of firepower the heavy bomber can deliver. Just three bombers could launch 72 LRASMs at a target.

Why I repeat ad nauseum that our amphibs should be multi-role light flat- tops with a ski-jump and angled deck using the IAC-I deck layout as a template.The lifts should be large enough for JSF, NLCA ( easy) and 12t heavy helos. These 3 to 4 amphibs could patrol the IOR at different locations , in concert with the 2 CBGs or on their own as well.

but the sortie rate of such LHD ships like wasp/tarawa/america class using vstol jets like harrier or jsf is by design not so great because a lot of interior is devoted to the marine mission and lot of transport helicopters.

what we want are ASW oriented ships, without fixed wing but plenty of big scary ASW helos and long range anti-ship/SAM and asroc missiles to act as a seaside fulcrum in concert with LRMP a/c

a good soln would be the Hyuga class, only 20,000t full load (reasonable cost) and room for 18 large helicopters - we could build and equip 6 of these to lead their own task groups away from the real fixed wing carriers - which will at best be 3. the big helis can also fly 250km out with 2 harpoons for light targets or sneaky low level attacks.

the tubby EU designs of the rotterdam/mistral/juan carlos refugee hunting and flag waving school is NOT what we need.

Singha wrote:old confuscian saying "the wise embrace their destiny and prepare, rather than wait to be overtaken by adverse events"

Old college mate saying..."pawam sdre should keep gaze down and not look at curvy Natashas" I'm trying my best to follow and have looked away from the picture of queen in green that lurks in cavernous hangars...

Backfires were offered as far back in the '70s after the war to the IAF.ACM PC Lal didn't want them! Not too long ago the IN was on the verge of acquiring a small number linked with some other deals.TU-142 Bears have been replaced by P-8Is,which are more modern platforms-easier to operate,but with some below-par performance(CAG),but do not have the massive range of the Bear which is still being used by the Russians as LR maritime and nuclear strike bombers.Last ops in Syria. Yes, the proposal for amphibs will have shortfalls,less capability than a full-blown CV,but with more modern aircraft,better capability than the Viraat.they are meant to be complementary in case of a crisis adding to the number of aricraft available at sea. The only other affordable alternative that I can see is for the IN to go in for a sister ship of the IAC-1,with larger lifts,and let the amphibs be of JC class but with ski-jumps in the event of JSFs being available in the future.This way we'll have 3 med. size carriers plus 3-4 amphibs.Building the sister ship of the IAC-1 should take much ;less time and having similar machinery and eqpt. would b cost-effective,crew training,etc.

i saw a film yesterday where a jihadi attempts to denote a n-device using a speedboat near turkey in middle of a 6th fleet formation featuring a carrier and its escorts. the hero manages to drop the device in the water before it explodes and creates a huge tidal wave. the ships get a few mins of warning to prepare , get awash in huge waves but survive.interesting thing is the NBC lockdown.- all hatches and doors are closed and people clear out of the carrier deck also.- those on the bridge don NBC suits and air breathers with full facemask, rest of crew are down below in normal dress- after the explosion, automatic sprinkers all over the ships powerfully wash the exterior clean of all residue before anyone ventures out- the HVAC systems will no doubt be sealed to external air and recirculate internally.